CNN senior legal analyst Ellie Honig and Democratic strategist James Carville sparred over the trial and conviction of former President Trump during a duel segment on CNN’s “Smerconish” on Saturday.
Earlier in the talk show, Carville implicitly criticized Honig’s critical comments about the trial and denied Honig’s concerns that Judge Marchan had donated money to far-left, anti-Trump political groups.
Later on the show, Honig addressed Carville’s rebuke, asking whether it was OK for a judge presiding over Trump’s cases to donate to causes that explicitly support Trump.
“I don’t think James Carville would accept that,” Honig asserted in a conversation with CNN anchor Michael Smerconish.
Biden scoffs at idea he’s ‘pulling strings’ in Trump prosecution: ‘I didn’t know I had that much power’
CNN senior legal analyst Ellie Honig and Democratic strategist James Carville debated Honig’s criticism of the Trump trial, which ended with the former president’s conviction. (Screenshot/CNN | jfizzy/Star Max / Contributor/Getty)
The debate is centered on Honig’s article in New York Magazine The video went viral on Friday, pointing out a particular aspect of the trial in which former President Trump was convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records.
In commentary, legal analysts said they respected the jury’s verdict but accused District Attorney Alvin Bragg of introducing an “ill-conceived and unjustified confusion” before a clearly anti-Trump judge.
“The prosecution has caught its culprit, at least for now, but it has also twisted the law in unprecedented ways to get its prey,” Honig wrote in summarizing the case.
Carville was fixated on Honig’s critical assessment of Judge Juan Marchan, who wrote that the judge “donated a small amount of $35 to pro-Biden, anti-Trump political causes in clear violation of the rule that New York judges are prohibited from making any political contributions, including funds the judge earmarked for ‘resisting the Republican Party and the far-right legacy of Donald Trump.'”
Legal experts questioned, “If the judge had donated a few dollars to ‘Re-Elect Donald Trump, MAGA Forever!’ would people have been completely comfortable with him continuing to preside over this case?”
“Absolutely not,” he wrote.
‘It’s completely insane’: Americans react to Trump’s shocking guilty verdict in New York trial
Elie Honig wrote that prosecutors in New York v. Trump “twisted the law in unprecedented ways to capture their prey.” (CNN/Screenshot)
Carville, in conversations with Smerconish and former Obama aide David Axelrod, ridiculed this.
Alluding to the column, he said, “Some of the commentary on this case has been really bad. One person argued that the judge donated $35 to the Democratic Party, but failed to inform readers that the judge asked the supervisory court whether the case should go ahead and the court said yes.”
“So there’s a lot to uncover here,” he concluded.
A few minutes after Carville and Axelrod’s segment, Honig appeared on the show to discuss issues surrounding the trial, at one point mentioning Carville’s rejection of his opinion regarding Judge Marchan.
The legal analyst and former U.S. attorney acknowledged the strategists’ argument that the ethics committee allowed Marchan to work the case despite the donations, but questioned whether his inclusion was still justified.
“The ethics committee looked at this and said, ‘There’s no need to shy away from this.’ But there’s a difference between ‘must’ and ‘should.'”
Click here to get the FOX News app
Addressing Carville, he added: “My question to Mr. Carville and others like you is: If the judge in another Trump lawsuit donated a tiny amount of money, $35, to MAGA 2020 Trump Forever: Stand Up to Joe Biden, would you be OK with that? I don’t think so.”
“I think James Carville would not agree with that and I think that’s the principle here,” he concluded.
